Now I’m curious! What’s going on in Houston that’s so special? And I mean that earnestly.
If I tell you the data shows there is no difference between a cap of 20, 30 or 50, like at all, does that change your opinion in any way?
1 Like
Josh-I think you have nailed the issue before, namely perception. I find that there are just some people who are not going to be swayed by any amount of math, logic or statistics if they feel a certain way.
1 Like
Actually, no! Honestly a cap is probably arbitrary, but I feel like it would give a better illusion that anyone can qualify. 52, 30, 20… they’re just lists that fill out and give you your own records to break if you want to go higher.
I’m also gonna echo @jdelz and say that increasing the SCS field from 16 to 24 would be an excellent idea.
…All this talk about unofficial state championships makes me want to make tournaments for the top 100 or something, though!
And here’s where I end up agreeing with you. If we can suck people in because of the illusion they now have a better chance, even if “we” all know it doesn’t…It could be a positive move.
2 Likes
They just play all day everyday pretty much.
If a player really played all their local leagues and local tourneys, presumably also including that biggest event of the year, and they still didn’t have enough points to qualify for SCS… then perhaps the reality is that they’re not yet good enough. Hopefully that high volume of play has been improving their skills along the way, and they’ll be able to make it in next year. But “played a ton” shouldn’t be a sufficient qualification.
3 Likes
If there is an interest to want to celebrate these “grinders” I’m not opposed to running with that as a positive thing.
We can run the IFPA Ironman State Championships, eligible to anyone that played in at least 52 events in a state. Doesn’t matter how well you did, or how many players in a state qualify … Play once a week on average and YOU’RE IN 
5 Likes
I…I…kind of do like the idea of a Nationals side tourney for the person from each state who played in the most tournaments.
2 Likes
If there are 42 states with 16 players each, that’s 672 spots in the SCS. I can’t imagine that there are really more than a few dozen players who “deserve” to be included, but aren’t getting in. Does anyone actually have more than a handful of examples?
It feels like the perception of unfairness is much larger than the reality.
Many of the solutions to state specific issues have been proposed. (For states with several large population centers, create custom rankings and have/award City Championships. For small states dominated by one large show: run more events). People affected by those situations don’t seem to like the proposed solutions, but in my opinion, the counter-proposals will affect everyone, even those who aren’t having issues to begin with.
TL;DR There are no right answers, but some are more right than others?
2 Likes
I will say that a few states like Oregon and Washington have a ridiculous number of events. Expanding the field to 24 seems like a logical idea. In Washington, all of the people who would get in are at 2.5+ WPPRs/event (and many significantly higher), but in Oregon, the list is more “grinders”…in the low 2s and 1s per event.
New York doesn’t have as many events, but the bubble players mostly have 15-30 events in the 3/4/5 WPPRs per range.
I don’t hear any complaining in Colorado, but that’s because everyone lives in the same area and we don’t have any big out of state tourneys. The bubble here is a wildly mixed bag in terms of number of events, but the WPPRs per is consistent with the top 16. The people who play the most here will get in, but they’re also mostly the best players (except for a few who just don’t play that much and/or are underage).
1 Like
If we go that route, we could also have a top 16 “Road Warrior Championship” side event for the people who’ve played in the most different states. I think Trent, Fred and Sunshine each have at least a dozen already this year.
2 Likes
Don’t forget Robert Hooton. Still amazed he played in 2 circuit events on the same weekend.
5 Likes
As an outsider looking in, and someone who has had a fair few disagreements about the ranking system in general, it looks to me like the same arguments about skilled players over travelled players that is discussed time and time again regarding US and non-US players.
However, looking at the DATA presented it matters not a jot whether there’s out of state players, or the number of tournaments in a region, if you’re good enough you’ll get in.
The chances of you being “bubbled out” by a “better” out of state play AND you being good enough to have a realistic chance at the State Finals are pretty low.
PLUS, if you are knocked out by an out of state player who does well in one of the big shows in your state, it simply means that you needed to have placed higher up those rankings anyway.
People are highlighting the out of towners stealing places for locals, but surely not all 16 qualifiers can be out of towners getting points from one comp?
I hate to say I agree with @pinwizj, but there really just doesn’t seem to be a major problem here, just the perception of a problem. I’m even going to use one of his arguments now. If someone isn’t willing to travel to qualify for the SCS, are they going to be willing to travel to the Finals, or the Nationals?
On the other hand, we have a similar situation with the UKCS. Over the last 3 years there are on average only 8-10 competitions annually. Some of the larger shows attract competitors from overseas, others have vastly higher WPPR pts available than others, meaning if you won the largest show in the UK, and didn’t compete in anything else you’d still qualify for the finals.
The way this was got around, and was done from day 1, was that each comp was given a “UKCS pts value” of 100 for winning, no matter what the WPPR value for winning was - that way all tournaments were equal for winning. The non-winners (losers) were then allocated pts, based on their position and the number of competitors in the comp. Format of the comp made no difference whatsoever.
In addition only your best 8 of 10 (or 6 of 8 etc.) results were used for the final standings.
That could be a solution, meaning people would still travel from out of state for big shows, for prize money and WPPR pts, and some SCS pts, but it would not be disproportionately large per competition - thus “slightly” favouring those people who wouldn’t travel out of state.
But really - there isn’t a massive problem here.
3 Likes
Pretty thorough understanding for an outsider looking in!!! I don’t think its a massive problem, like the thread title implies its just a suggestion.
will the challenges allowed in 2018 count toward SCS?
The challenge matches are not for wppr’s. We have some updated details regarding those … Soon
cool!!
Well OBVIOUSLY I like the one that puts me in first place 
Interesting results for Texas, thanks for taking the time to compile these. It will be interesting to see what things look like after the full 12 months. While there was only 2 positions that were changed when moving from capped to uncapped, the distribution of of WPPR values did shift downwards pretty considerably, as well as skew the distribution towards lower values. I think thats a good think because it makes the prospect of qualifying more obtainable for people that are not currently in the top 16.
1 Like
If some minimum event count and/or unique player count (which is easily tracked by us) is hit, that SCS field expands from 16 to 24 for that state.
Some plebs in Eugene, Oregon have been attempting to brainstorm ways in which we could feasibly get value for the money we’ll be paying toward the IFPA Portland City Championship in 2018, and this is the only idea I’ve seen that alleviates some of the issues faced in many states without compromising the spirit of the SCS, which is play more pinball!
This would help increase the prestige of the State Championship tournament by making it worth more WPPR as well - a field of 24 or 32 is obviously worth more than 16.
And after all… if you consider qualifying for the SCS like you would any other IFPA tournament… shouldn’t you take at least 10% of the field?? 
4 Likes
Let’s see, that would be 144 people for PA - - so far!
4 Likes